Cenvat credit cannot be denied for invoice consignee defects where receipt, use, and non-availment by the job worker are proved.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoices name a job worker as consignee where the supplies are shown to be on account of the recipient, the goods are received in the recipient's premises, and the job worker has not availed credit. Documentary evidence of receipt and use of inputs, together with the absence of proof that the goods were not received by the recipient, is sufficient to sustain credit. A technical defect in the consignee name on the invoice is not enough to disallow credit when substantive receipt and utilisation are established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices were issued in the name of the job worker, when the goods were shown to have been supplied on account of the respondent, received in the respondent's premises, and not availed as credit by the job worker.

Analysis: The invoices indicated that the supplies were on account of the respondent, though consigned to its job worker. The job worker certified that it had not taken credit, and the respondent produced documentary evidence to show receipt and use of the goods. The Department did not establish that the goods were not received by the respondent. A technical objection as to the consignee's name on the invoice was insufficient to disallow credit where the substantive receipt and utilisation of inputs were supported by evidence.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on the sole ground that the invoices named the job worker as consignee, and the respondent was entitled to the credit.

---